“Forward ever, backward never: onwards with Breaking Through”

Bonanza for officers, lower-level staff ignored’

NEW DELHI: A top government employees' body rejected the Seventh Pay Commission's recommendations as "disappointing" and said they will observe 'black day' on November 27.

"The employees are totally disappointed with the adverse recommendations," said Shiva Gopal Mishra, convener of the National Joint Council of Action (NJAC) of central government employees.

He added, "While giving a bonanza to higher level officers, the commission has completely ignored low paid employees."

Mishra said the demand of the staff side of the National Council of JCM to fix the minimum pay at Rs 26,000 was completely rejected by the pay panel and this was arbitrarily fixed at Rs 18,000.

The NJAC said the public was misled by the statement that a hike of 23.5% was granted to employees whereas the actual increase was only 14.29%.

"While the minimum wage is fixed at Rs 18,000, secretary level officers will be paid Rs 225,000 and the cabinet secretary's salary is fixed at Rs 250,000. The National Council - JCM (Staff Side) had demanded that the ratio between minimum pay and maximum pay should be not more than 1:8 but the CPC has kept the ratio as 1:13.8," it said.
The NJAC said, "In a nutshell, central government employees are totally upset, dissatisfied and disappointed over the major recommendations. Therefore it has decided to observe a massive demonstration on November 27."

HOLD PROTEST DEMONSTRATIONS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY on 27th November  2015 by wearing black badges.

The NJCA, in the meeting held at Delhi on the 20th of November 2015, termed it as the worst recommendations ever made by any previous pay commission. The following is the briefing of the meeting.
  • 7th CPC Recommendation for children Education Allowance
    8.17.11 CEA is paid to government employees to take care of schooling and hostel requirements of their children. The rates of CEA are double for a differently abled child.
    8.17.12 Many demands have been received regarding CEA. It has been requested that the amount be suitably raised and CEA should be extended for Graduation/Post Graduation level studies also. The Commission has received an overwhelming number of requests for simplification of the procedure for reimbursement.
    Analysis and Recommendations
    8.17.13 Before VI CPC recommendations, the scheme was known as Children Education Assistance and provided at the following rates:
    Class I-X
    Class XI-XII
    Reimbursement of Tuition
    Fee (₹ pm)
    Reimbursement of Tuition
    Fee for Disabled and mentally
    retarded children (₹ pm)
    Children Education
    Allowance (₹ pm)
    In case the government employee is compelled to send his child to a school away from the Station of his posting
    Hostel Subsidy (₹pm)
    In case the employee is obliged to keep his children in a hostel away from the Station of his posting and residence on
    Account of transfer.
    8.17.14 The VI CPC rationalized the structure to the following:-
    Present Rates
    ₹ 1500 pm
    Whenever DA increases by 50% CEA shall increase by 25%
    Hostel Subsidy
    ₹ 4500 pm
    Whenever DA increases by 50% Hostel Subsidy shall increase by 25%
    8.17.15 Effectively a 10-fold rise was given by VI CPC. This has led to high expectations, and consequently, vast number of demands for increasing the rates, expansion of scope and simplification for procedure of reimbursement of this allowance.
    8.17.16 The various issues are examined seriatim:
    • Has CEA kept pace with time? Presently CEA goes up by 25 percent each time DA increases by 50 percent. Thus, since DA currently stands at 113 percent, CEA has gone up by 50 percent from its 2008 level. As against this, the movement of the All India Education Index33 is shown below:
    The above chart shows that between 2008 and 2013, the Education Index has gone up from 134 to 154, i.e., by 14.9 percent, whereas CEA went up by 25 percent w.e.f. 01.01.2011 (when DA exceeded 50 percent). Thus, it can be concluded that increase in CEA has kept pace with (and in fact exceeded) the cost of education.
    • What is the adequate level of compensation? Given the wide range of educational institutions, and the varying fee structure, the question of adequacy depends upon many factors. On the one hand we have government institutions like Kendriya Vidyalayas that charge fees to the tune of ₹1,000 per month (including Vidyalaya Vikas Nidhi) and on the other hand there are private institutions where the monthly fee varies from ₹5,000 to ₹25,000 (or even more) per month.
    8.17.17 On the whole, the Commission is of the view that quantum of CEA should be calibrated in such a manner that the main objective is met without the government entering into the field of subsidizing private education. Hence, taking into account the various items of expenditure that are reimbursed as a part of this allowance, the following is recommended:
    Recommended Rate
    CEA (₹ pm)
    1500 x 1.5 =2250
    Whenever DA increases by 50%, CEA shall increase by 25%
    Hostel Subsidy (₹ pm)
    4500 x 1.5 = 6750
    Whenever DA increases by 50%, Hostel Subsidy shall increase by 25%
    The allowance will continue to be double for differently abled children.
    • What should be the scope of CEA? Presently CEA is payable up to Class XII. There is a strong demand for increasing the scope to Graduate and Post Graduate studies. However, due to the greatly varying nature of studies at the graduate level and beyond, the extension of scope of the allowance beyond Class XII cannot be accepted.
    Simplification of Procedure for Reimbursement. This is a major area of concern. Many representations have been received by the Commission wherein employees have stated that due to cumbersome procedures, reimbursement has been held up for years. Another issue is the kind of voucher which will be accepted and which kind of voucher will not. The issue has been examined, and the apprehensions expressed are not without merit. It is recommended that reimbursement should be done just once a year, after completion of the financial year (which for most schools coincides with the Academic year). For CEA, a certificate from the head of institution where the ward of government employee studies should be sufficient for this purpose. The certificate should confirm that the child studied in the school during the previous academic year. For Hostel Subsidy, a similar certificate from the head of institution should suffice, with the additional requirement that the certificate should mention the amount of expenditure incurred by the government servant towards lodging and boarding in the residential complex. The amount of expenditure mentioned, or the ceiling as mentioned in the table above, whichever is lower, shall be paid to the employee.
    7th Pay suitable modifications for Civilian employees, the following rates of CGEGIS are recommended
    9.3.1 Subsequent to the implementation of the III CPC recommendations, Central Government Employees’ Group Insurance Scheme (CGEGIS) was notified in 1980 and came into force w.e.f. 1 January, 1982. The scheme serves the twin objectives of (a) providing a lump-sum amount to the families in case of an employee’s death and (b) a lump-sum payment to the employee on cessation of employment, both on a wholly contributory and self-financing basis.
    Present Position
    9.3.2 CGEGIS comprises a Savings Fund and an Insurance Fund in the ratio 70:30. The present rates of deduction, insured amount and savings units are as follows:
    Table 1: Present Rates of CGEGIS
    Monthly Deduction(₹)
    Insurance Amount(₹)
    No.of Units
    (for Savings)
    9.3.3 The value, in ₹, of each unit (for Savings) is published by the Ministry of Finance every year in the form of Tables of Benefits, and the total amount is worked out using the same depending upon when the employee joined the scheme and the year/month of cessation of membership. Upon employee’s exit from the scheme, only the Savings amount, as applicable on the concerned date, is payable. In case of demise of the employee, the Savings amount applicable on date plus the Insured amount is payable.
    9.3.4 The Commission has received numerous representations from various stakeholders stating that the Monthly Deduction as well as the Insurance Amount have remained unchanged since 1990. In the present context, they are too low and should be increased.
    Analysis and Recommendations
    9.3.5 As a logical comparator, the Commission considered the rates under Army Group Insurance Fund (AGIF), which have become applicable w.e.f. 01.09.2013. These are as follows
    Table 2: Present Rates of AGIF
    Monthly Deduction(₹)
    Insurance Amount(₹)
    9.3.6 The Commission also took into view the fact that pay of Defence personnel is by and large higher than that of Civilian employees of comparable level. Hence, with suitable modifications for Civilian employees, the following rates of CGEGIS are recommended:
    Table 3: Recommended Rates of CGEGIS
    Level of Employee
    Monthly Deduction(₹)
    Insurance Amount(₹)
    10 and Above
    6 to 9
    1 to 5
    9.3.7 The Commission also took note of the fact that the Tables of Benefits published by Ministry of Finance are based on the mortality rate of 3.75 per thousand per annum up to 31.12.1987 and 3.60 per thousand per annum thereafter. In its report (brought out in January 1997), the V CPC had pointed out that the mortality rate, life expectancy and health delivery systems have improved over a period of time. They had highlighted the need “for a detailed review of the current mortality rates with a view to revising the apportionment between the Savings and Insurance Funds.” Since it was likely to take some time, they had recommended a ratio of Savings Fund to Insurance Fund of 75:25, with “appropriate machinery for a periodical review of the mortality rates and adjustment of the apportionment ratio.”
    9.3.8 All the three factors viz., mortality rate, life expectancy and health delivery systems have further improved over the course of nearly twenty years following the V CPC recommendations. Accordingly, this Commission recommends that the ratio of Savings Fund to Insurance Fund be modified from the present 70:30 to 75:25, as an interim measure, pending a detailed review. It is also recommended that periodical reviews of mortality rates should be undertaken for suitable adjustment of the apportionment ratio. The Tables of Benefits may be modified accordingly